Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This example isn't right, in that it does not expose the problem, as
> the first command in the AND list should fail. Did you mean "test -z"
> instead of "test -n" (four instances), or "foo=''", and is there a
> reason to prefer it over the simpler "f
Hi Paul,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, May 01, 2006 at 07:37:55PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > +The [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.8 shell
>
> Thanks, but the latest OpenBSD release is 3.9, so there's something
> wrong here. Perhaps you meant "3.8"?
Yes, sorry about that. Open
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +The [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4.8 shell
Thanks, but the latest OpenBSD release is 3.9, so there's something
wrong here. Perhaps you meant "3.8"? Or "FreeBSD 4.8"? I've
verified that the bug is in OpenBSD 3.4, so we can assume the bug is
present in more th
[ upstream report:
http://cvs.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-wrapper?full=yes&numbers=5093
]
OpenBSD /bin/sh aka /bin/ksh has an interesting bug: the second "false"
in the script below wrongly causes the shell to exit, but not the first
one, so "two" isn't printed.
#! /bin/sh
set -e
false && exit
OK? (No, I haven't traced back any test suite failures in Automake to
missing changes here; yet.)
Cheers,
Ralf
* tests/defs.in (Be Bourne compatible): Update from current
Autoconf.
Index: tests/defs.in
===
RCS file:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 08:43:46AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Well, that would be fine: lock() would detect it with MAKEFLAGS.
> My question was posed wrongly: is there real-world indication of
> build tools other than `make' that may happen to invoke more than
> one instance of autom4te, poss
